"Hillary Clinton has raised questions about Democratic rival Barack Obama's use of a political action committee to funnel money to Democratic candidates in New Hampshire and other key early voting states...At issue is how candidates use their leadership PACs, which are designed to distribute money to other candidates and political committees. Candidates are forbidden from using leadership PACs to directly advance their campaigns, campaign finance experts said. After the Washington Post reported the donations earlier this week, the Clinton campaign released a statement implying that Obama was flouting campaign laws.

"It is our understanding that a candidate's campaign is barred from using the candidate's leadership PAC to benefit his or her campaign which is why we shut down Hill PAC when Senator Clinton announced her run for the White House," the statement said. "On the campaign trail, Senator Obama is outspoken about his desire to reform the campaign finance system, so it was surprising to learn that he has been using his PAC in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws." Obama's campaign responded by denouncing the statement and upping the conflict, attempting to demonstrate larger differences between the candidates on financial disclosure.

"Whatever happened to the confident frontrunner who said she wouldn't attack other Democrats just two weeks ago?" Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "The latest personal attack from Hillary Clinton is a completely false attempt to misrepresent Barack Obama's full disclosure of his campaign finances.

"Senator Obama's commitment to disclosure is one that Hillary Clinton does not share, and until Senator Clinton is willing to make this commitment by disclosing her White House records, the list of donors to her husband's presidential library, how much her bundlers raise, and releasing her personal tax returns to the public - she's not really in a position to point fingers at others," Burton said.

On the one hand, people will contribute to a PAC run by a high viz individual so there's money to help others who are less well known.

On the other hand, that dough can be, and often is, used to both help and politically aggrandize the supplier of the cash. And timing on distribution is everything.

PACS played a HUGE role in delivering us the Congress in 06, and were it not for them, we'd be seeing a Republican replacing Fat Denny as Mistah Speekah.

So it's important to keep that in mind before decrying PACs out of hand.

I think, like it or not, Bill Clinton's business--the shit HE controls as a former President (and for which he needs permission from Bush, as well, to release) --is just off limits. It is.

Yes, they are a "two fer" but at the same time, they aren't. Going after the Senator with a sorta side-swiped "Make your HUSBAND release WH records and donor lists" demand is just .... cheesy. Rookie-ish.

It is just as bad as someone saying to Michelle Obama "Hey, Michelle, MAKE your husband dig up those state legislative files he claims he doesn't have! Come on, he's YOUR husband--lean on him!"

I wish all the candidates would spend less time playing gotcha and more time talking about specific issues. My primary is a month earlier, I gotta start making up my mind, and this bullshit isn't helping.

Not too long ago, progressive Democrats were united in saying the campaigns were too long and were being corrupted by money, an argument for public financing.

Now too many partisans of this Democratic candidate or that are using the nauseatingly vast sums of money raised by their candidates as proof positive he or she has leadership ability and support of the people. Enough, already! The system is corrupt from top to bottom.

And why haven't our people addressed the issue of electronic voting and our corrupt elections?

My fear is that we're headed for our third stolen presidential election. I can hear the talking heads now, "America wasn't ready for a woman. American wasn't ready for an African American, etc., etc., etc." Well, this American isn't ready for another stolen joke of an election; but I fear that is where we may be headed.

Leadership PACs donate money to other candidates. It's one of their primary missions to help elect other Democrats. Nothing in the law speaks to the timing or says that presidential candidates who have leadership PACs cannot continue donating through them to other Democratic candidates. In the course of it, they do gain influence. Pumping money into early primary states for a year or two in advance of a campaign, as Clinton did do, brings the same influence and possible endorsements. What's the difference? No difference. The fact of the matter is Obama's contributions did not necessarily bring with them endorsements. There is no evidence of any quid pro quo. The donations were duly filed with the FEC, with no attempt to hide them. Nor did he exceptionally benefit.

Here is how it went in New Hampshire, for example, where three candidates who received donations from Hopefund endorsed Obama and three candidates who received donations from Hopefund endorsed Clinton:

Among the local officials who received $1,000 from Obama's Hopefund PAC were New Hampshire state senators Harold Janeway, Jackie Cilley and Martha Fuller Clark. All have endorsed Obama.

The PAC also contributed $1,000 each to Sens. Iris Estabrook, Kathleen Sgambati and Lou D'Allesandro, all of whom later endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton. The PAC gave $6,000 to Gov. John Lynch's campaign war chest; Lynch has not endorsed in the presidential contest.

Ten county Democratic committees in New Hampshire received $1,000 each from Obama's PAC and the state Democratic Party received $5,000. The Iowa Senate Majority fund and the Iowa House Truman Fund, political groups that assist local legislative candidates, received $30,000 each from the PAC. Their New Hampshire counterparts received $15,000 each.

The Hopefund also contributed to 62 Democratic senators, congressmen and federal candidates across the country in contributions ranging from $2,500 to $5,000. Among the recipients were Democratic Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, who received $4,000 each, and U.S. Senate candidate Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, $5,000.

past association with some corrupt people:Obama's office linked to indicted fundraiser - USATODAY.comObama's Office Linked To Rezko (Obama caught being less than truthful) An Obama Patron and Friend Until an Indictment - New York Times

such as the fact that Tony Rezko is an Arab-American immigrant businessman who donates a lot of money to various Democrats including the governor of Illinois. Mr. Rezko and his family were in Lebanon when the indictment came down; he flew back to the US and turned himself in. Given their close ties with local officials, I think most developers can be made to look bad. Ask former Alabama governor Siegelman if George Bush's Justice Department would ever prosecute someone for political reasons.

Before announcing her candidacy, for example, Clinton used her leadership PAC to pay salaries to employees who would later become high-ranking members of her presidential campaign. She also used the PAC to donate to candidates and Democratic efforts in key presidential nominating states. In October of last year, for example, Carol Shea-Porter, now a New Hampshire congresswoman, received a $2,500 contribution from Clinton's PAC.

So Team Clinton is making some kind of point about Obama using leadership PAC money....hmmm...

"Before announcing her candidacy, for example, Clinton used her leadership PAC to pay salaries to employees who would later become high-ranking members of her presidential campaign. She also used the PAC to donate to candidates and Democratic efforts in key presidential nominating states. In October of last year, for example, Carol Shea-Porter, now a New Hampshire congresswoman, received a $2,500 contribution from Clinton's PAC. "

Now, in theory she wasn't a candidate then, but:

"Leadership PACs are "another pot of money for the politician to raise; yes, it's supposed to be used differently than campaign money, but it's all with the intent of raising the politician's political profile," said Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.

Ritsch saw little difference between using leadership PAC money before candidates officially announce their presidential ambitions and after. "When we saw people thinking of running for president showering contributions on officials in New Hampshire and Iowa, it was pretty clear then what the goal was," he said. "It's not any more clear now that they're a declared candidate."

She hired consultants for thousands of dollars a month who suddenly endorsed her. But donating money to candidates has always been done and the Clinton people are being bold-faced liars to suggest otherwise.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.